Impact of Patient and Procedure-Related Factors on Radiation Exposure from Uterine Artery Embolization

  • Eduardo A. LacayoEmail author
  • Satinderpal S. Khera
  • James B. Spies
Clinical Investigation Radiation Protection
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Radiation Protection



To determine the range of radiation dose metrics for uterine artery embolization and the impact of patient and procedure factors on those measures.

Materials and Methods

Procedure records of 515 uterine embolization procedures were reviewed and various metrics recorded, including patient demographics, body mass index (BMI), radiation exposure measures and procedure-related details. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the measures, and appropriate parametric and nonparametric tests were used to compare and assess the correlation between the measures and the cumulative dose (CD), dose area product and fluoroscopy time (FT). Multivariable regression analysis was used to assess the impact of individual factors on the measures of radiation dose.


The strongest correlation among the measures compared were between CD and BMI (r = 0.70), while the correlation between BMI and FT was weak (r = 0.23). Dose was higher for those procedures done with aortography and those who had TAGM as the embolic agent. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an increase of 7.4% in CD for each increase in BMI, 5.9% for each increase in cm uterine length. FT was impacted to a lesser extent, with an increase of 2.8% per unit BMI. Increasing procedure time had a greater impact on FT (r = 0.56) than on CD (r = 0.33).


Among the measured variables, BMI had the greatest impact on CD and has a substantial impact on the risk of radiation-induced skin injury, even without prolonged FT.


Radiation Safety Embolization Fibroids 



This study was not supported by any funding.

Compliance and Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Author James B. Spies is a consultant for Le Force Group.

Ethical Approval

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed Consent

This study has obtained IRB approval and the need for informed consent was waived.

Consent for Publication

For this type of study consent for publication is not required.


  1. 1.
    van der Kooij SM, Bipat S, Hehenkamp WJ, Ankum WM, Reekers JA. Uterine artery embolization versus surgery in the treatment of symptomatic fibroids: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(4):317 e1–18.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller DL, Balter S, Noonan PT, Georgia JD. Minimizing radiation-induced skin injury in interventional radiology procedures. Radiology. 2002;225(2):329–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrews RT, Brown PH. Uterine arterial embolization: factors influencing patient radiation exposure. Radiology. 2000;217(3):713–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nikolic B, Spies JB, Lundsten MJ, Abbara S. Patient radiation dose associated with uterine artery embolization. Radiology. 2000;214(1):121–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scheurig-Muenkler C, Powerski MJ, Mueller JC, Kroencke TJ. Radiation exposure during uterine artery embolization: effective measures to minimize dose to the patient. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2015;38(3):613–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, Lu HT, Schueler BA, Geisinger M, et al. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study: part I: overall measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14(6):711–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nikolic B, Spies J, Lundsten M, Abbara S. Patient radiation dose associated with uterine artery embolization. Radiology. 2000;214:121–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nikolic B, Abbara S, Levy E, Imaoka I, Lundsten ML, Jha RC, et al. Influence of radiographic technique and equipment on absorbed ovarian dose associated with uterine artery embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000;11(9):1173–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nikolic B, Spies JB, Campbell L, Walsh SM, Abbara S, Lundsten MJ. Uterine artery embolization: reduced radiation with refined technique. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12(1):39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andrews R, Brown P. Uterine arterial embolization: factors influencing patient radiation exposure. Radiology. 2000;217:713–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shah A, Das P, Subkovas E, Buch AN, Rees M, Bellamy C. Radiation dose during coronary angiogram: relation to body mass index. Heart Lung Circ. 2015;24(1):21–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ector J, Dragusin O, Adriaenssens B, Huybrechts W, Willems R, Ector H, et al. Obesity is a major determinant of radiation dose in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(3):234–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spies JB, Allison S, Flick P, McCullough M, Sterbis K, Cramp M, et al. Polyvinyl alcohol particles and tris-acryl gelatin microspheres for uterine artery embolization for leiomyomas: results of a randomized comparative study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;15(8):793–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Balter S, Hopewell JW, Miller DL, Wagner LK, Zelefsky MJ. Fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a review of radiation effects on patients’ skin and hair. Radiology. 2010;254(2):326–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Costantino M, Lee J, McCullough M, Nsouli-Maktabi H, Spies JB. Bilateral versus unilateral femoral access for uterine artery embolization: results of a randomized comparative trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol JVIR. 2010;21(6):829–35 (quiz 35).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMedStar Georgetown University HospitalWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of California, Davis Medical CenterSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations